Dedicated to getting to the truth of things. A Christian since 1984. (Just a Christian, without pigeon-holing into a denomination.) I like people to be free to ask their questions about Christianity and the church. I like to approach faith questions with my brain switched on. A qualified classicist and historian.
Tweet: @colin_bluenose
And I don't look like James Garner. Enough about me already.

Saturday, 12 May 2018

Resurrection Sunday in Matthew's Gospel: where on earth are the men?

Compare the resurrection stories of Matthew and Luke and you
know that some strange business is going on.

In Matthew's Gospel, on resurrection Sunday, there is no sight of the male disciples whatsoever. They are neither seen or heard. Not a whisper. They are conspicuous by their absence. Meanwhile, all of the gospels have the women as witnesses to the empty
tomb. But only one of the gospels (Luke) has the moment where they tell the twelve disciples (apart from one or two), only to be disbelieved. Why is that scene only in Luke? I’ll come to a final answer
further down.

Consider the evidence.

Matthew does a bizarre edit. He has the women run from the
empty tomb and meet Jesus, get his instructions... and then Matthew cuts to the men suddenly arriving in Galilee and having a
wonderful time with Jesus there. Matthew disguises this awkward edit by
slapping an anecdote about the tomb guards in the middle. Go and have a look at
Matthew 28 from beginning to end. Without the anecdote in the middle, this is
how Matthew actually links together the stories of the women and the men after
the resurrection:

So the women hurried away from
the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly
Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and
worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my
brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

Then the eleven disciples went to
Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him,
they worshiped him; but some doubted.

Once pointed out, it’s glaringly obvious that something that
should be in the middle has been deliberately left out by Matthew. It actually
reads as if the men escaped to Galilee before the women had a chance to find
them. But Matthew has slipped an anecdote in the middle so that we don’t notice
his awkward join.

By not telling us anything
about what happened when the disciples receive the women’s message, Matthew implicitly
leaves a flattering impression that the disciples must have simply believed the
women, simply heard and obeyed their instruction to go to Galilee, and had no
issues about Jesus being risen from the dead. Is that all there is to the story,
or is there another agenda at work?

Compare this with Luke. He too edits something out. He had
read Mark. Therefore Luke, like Matthew, knew that the disciples were instructed to go to Galilee. But
Luke edits the instruction out. What? Yes, indeed. And having done so, he
completes the erasure by not mentioning the trip to Galilee at all. Even though he’s read Mark.
Thank you, Luke.

What is going on? Strange omissions. What might these
omissions by Matthew and Luke tell us about how the early Christians told and
received these stories?

Another omission by
Matthew: “Peter and the disciples”

Paul mentions that Jesus first appeared to Peter, then to
the twelve in that order. Paul set that out explicitly when he was writing in
the middle of the 50s of the first century, before
Matthew was written. Paul
had written:

“that he was raised on the third
day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], and then to the Twelve.”

For that to be the case, Peter must have been in a different
geographical location from his fellow disciples at first. This also seems to
have been known
to Mark, who also wrote his Gospel before
Matthew’s was written.

“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You
are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not
here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into
Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

So there were actually going to be at least two meetings
with Jesus according to that. Matthew erases at least one of those meetings
from the story by giving us a short version:

“Then go quickly
and tell his disciples: ‘He has
risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee.”

Matthew has just shortened it and skipped mention of Jesus’
meeting with Peter. Matthew is going to miss something out of the story, isn’t
he? You bet your life he is. So now you would think that the only meeting with
Jesus to recount was the one in Galilee with the whole group. But Matthew's edits are
a smoking gun, especially the awkward join. When you see the join, you know he’s left something out. It
gradually emerges that there is a gaping hole in the way that Matthew tells the
story. We are not told how the women’s resurrection message was received by the
men, or how any initial doubting about it played out, let alone any meeting
with Peter. That’s a big omission. The women were up at the crack of dawn on
the Sunday, and excited at meeting Jesus, but – as if the rest of that Sunday is not worth a
mention, which has a famous moment to come - Matthew sharply switches the scene
to about five days later, to Galilee. Matthew isn’t going to make up something cheerful
to happen on the Sunday to involve the men and fill the gaping hole. He doesn’t
do that at all. He just leaves the men out of Sunday. Entirely. This is hardly what you'd expect.

This leaves question wrapped inside question. We might ask why the scene of the women meeting the men is absent. But that question is wrapped within the bigger question of why the men are blotted completely out of the whole day. We might ask why the appearance of Jesus to the men in the Upper Room is absent. But again that question is wrapped within the bigger question of why the men are blotted completely out of the whole day. And so on. One question within another. To try to understand why one scene with the men is missing, we need to try to understand why all the scenes with the men are missing.

Curious omissions

So we have deliberate edits by Matthew. Let's focus for a moment on the first ones. He’s skipped a
prediction that there would have been a meeting of Jesus and Peter, and having
skipped the prediction, he can complete the erasure by skipping straight to the
group in Galilee – which is about five
days walk away! And with it he also skips the reaction of the men to the
women’s news. In other words, the whole of the rest of resurrection Sunday is
shielded from view, skipping every second of the men’s involvement in the day.

Even though Christians believed these things had happened! Yes,
Paul and Mark had already made knowledge of that meeting with Peter freely available,
only for Matthew to shorten the story, skipping the women’s big moments in
Jerusalem and Bethany, of the women briefing Peter and the disciples, and Peter’s
subsequent meeting with Jesus, skipping any involvement of the men that day,
and anything else momentous that day. Odd.

We can figure some of it out without even knowing any other
gospel. It has to be assumed that the men got involved, that the women did
their job and told the men to go to Galilee (otherwise the men never would have
got there). We can safely assume that there must have been some kind of reaction from the
men to the women’s news. But that’s all we could guess. Matthew also omits
anything that might have been said or done on the five days’ walk from there to
Galilee, even though Galilee is his big finish. No record of any of the disciples’
reaction to anything until Jesus appears to them in Galilee.

There has to be a reason for that.

Let’s backtrack, and remember something about Luke’s Gospel,
that Luke has read Mark. But Luke skips any mention of Galilee, editing out
both the prediction of Galilee altogether, and also the meeting on the mountain
with Jesus there.

What’s going on?

To recap the omissions then:

Matthew’s story skips any sight of the male
disciples, skipping the rest of the Sunday, skipping the women doing their job
and the men’s reaction to them doing so, and skirting around any hint of an
individual meeting with Peter (even though Paul
and Mark
and Luke
don’t skip mention of it), all with the effect of screening out the entire day after the empty tomb and afterthe
fleeing women meet Jesus.

Luke skips the instruction to go to Galilee and
the event in Galilee itself.

These seem to be deliberate omissions by Matthew and Luke,
given that both have read Mark. What is happening, when information that they
all had is differently treated, a bit left out here, a bit there?

When we examine closer, nothing really untoward is happening
here, but you have to see how they complement each other. It gives us reason to
be thankful that there are four gospels rather than one! A closer look at them will
pay rich dividends.

Now, of course, writers make editorial decisions for a
matrix of reasons, not necessarily for only one reason, in real life. So we’d
have to think, what things does Luke get out of editing out Galilee? Well, one
reason is that if he leaves in the instruction, he has to devote space to
telling how the instruction was (eventually) carried out. A second reason is
Luke’s own agenda, which has much to do with keeping the reader’s eyes on
promises fulfilled in Jerusalem, starting and finishing his Gospel there. It’s
a mix of reasons that would persuade a writer to edit something out.

And what does Matthew get out of editing a bigger chunk out?
Well, it suits his theme, which has much to do with keeping the readers’ eyes on
promises fulfilled in Galilee, starting and finishing his Gospel there. But
there is something more going on with Matthew than that. There’s something
about erasing the men’s entire involvement in the Sunday, which of course
erases Jesus’ appearance to the group on the Sunday.

Let’s start with that bizarre edit in Matthew.

Matthew

So the women hurried away from
the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly
Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and
worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my
brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

Then the eleven disciples went to
Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him,
they worshiped him; but some doubted.

The bizarre edit is rarely mentioned when we talk about the resurrection
story in Matthew. But it’s obvious when once you know about it. There are
eleven verses about the women’s experience at the empty tomb outside Jerusalem,
where they are commissioned to tell Peter and the disciples to go to Galilee.
Then what comes next? You expect it will be a scene where the women tell Peter or the rest of the
twelve that they have seen an empty tomb and Jesus and have come with a
message. But no, Matthew switches the scene to an anecdote about the guards at
the tomb. Five verses of that. Okay, now we’re really expecting to a scene
where the women tell Peter or the rest of the twelve that have seen an empty tomb and Jesus and have
come with a message. But no. There are zero verses about that. Not even a verse
for the women to shout out to the men, “Hey! We just saw Jesus!” Nothing. Zero.
Zilch. Instead, Matthew sharply switches the scene to Galilee, five or so days’
walk away. And then, in five meagre verses, Matthew rushes to describe an encounter
on the Galilee mountain with Jesus. The end. Hang on though, what? Why only
five verses featuring the men? And why leave them out earlier? No sight or
sound of the men hearing from the women about the empty tomb, no description of
the men’s reaction to the news… The men’s story has less than half as many
words as the women’s. That’s good for feminist social justice, but come on…
what has Matthew skipped?

Yes, let’s ask the big question about the smoking gun. What
has Matthew edited out? Quite a bit actually. Turn to Luke 24.

Here is exactly what Matthew doesn’t tell us. Here the
disciples get the message from the women. And you might be expecting something
great. Actually, no… “they did not believe the women, because their words
seemed to them like nonsense.” Oh dear. According to Matthew and Mark, the men’s
orders are to go to Galilee, to meet the risen Jesus there, who has already
gone ahead there. But they ain’t going nowhere. Awkward. Why would it be nonsense to them? Perhaps not just the business of someone being raised from the dead, as they had been primed for that. But the men may have found it impossible to believe that Jesus didn't appear to them first but rather to the women. Sexism driving unbelief. Like a lot of things about Jesus, it's more radical than men were ready for. No wonder that Luke
edited out the little instruction to go to Galilee. Why advertise a
cringeworthy "this is disobedience" slap in the face to the women who have just delivered the most
important message of their lives? It’s bad enough that the men haven’t believed.
They haven’t obeyed either. Not even to just set off for Galilee just in case
it’s true. Nope. Luke is reticent about that. Why pile on the misery by telling
another inconvenient truth? So Luke has edited out all mention of Galilee. (Editing
it out is doubly convenient for Luke because all along, he has been wanting to
start and finish his Gospel in Jerusalem.)

Let’s recap: Luke knows full well from reading Mark that Galilee
is on the itinerary, but blow it, he’s just not going to mention that. But
having revealed the men’s disbelief at the women, Luke can’t leave it there,
because he has to explain how their unbelief was overcome. Hence the fact that
the story that Matthew avoided is now laid bare: Jesus now turns up in the
house in Bethany, near Jerusalem, for them.

If Luke had mentioned Galilee, it would be all the more
embarrassing, as if Jesus is saying, “Hey, I’ve just had to come back to get
you!”

Ignoring what he knows from Mark, Luke has effectively
glossed over the fact that Plan A was for the first meeting to happen in their
beloved Galilee. Luke has edited Galilee out. So it’s straight to Plan B
without Luke mentioning there was ever a Plan A. The little village Bethany
just earned its place in the history books. And so, although we are told that Jesus
had gone ahead to Galilee, which rather makes the point of Plan A, he makes
a detour. This is where Matthew’s suspicious gaps are filled in. Over to Luke’s
Gospel.

So, Plan B, let’s call it “Mission Unbelief”, has Jesus back
in the Bethany area, building expectations up more slowly, meeting
two followers on the Emmaus Road, building up a little body of trusted
witnesses, and only then meeting the unbelieving group, for them to grasp the
news that they were meant to believe in the first place when the women were
entrusted with the vital news.

And then it’s the moment of truth. Jesus turns up to see them
together. As mentioned, Luke has glossed over the embarrassment a little bit
that Jesus has had to adopt Plan B by editing out any mention of Plan A (Galilee).
But it can’t entirely lift the embarrassment; it just softens it a little. Sure,
where Luke
picks up the scene, the eleven are now covering their embarrassment, excitedly
saying that Jesus
has appeared to Simon Peter (not to them, cough…), and now they hear that
Jesus has also met
the two on the Emmaus Road (still not to the disciples though, cough
cough…):

“…they found the Eleven and those
with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and
has appeared to Simon.”

Then the two told what had
happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them…”

So the eleven say what happened to Simon, and the two say
what happened to themselves. The eleven have nothing to say to anyone about how
the day has gone for themselves of course. Of course.

Anyway, the group are now
sounding convinced. They are not treating the news, coming from the men, the way they treated it when it came from the women.

But all the same, we know that the group could easily be
shown up for ignoring the women’s vital message. Then, Jesus appears to them.
And as Luke says, “they
were startled.” I’ll bet they were. Luke says they thought that “they saw a
ghost”. They’re really not believing are they? Jesus isn’t sparing them. Luke
says “he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to
believe”. Ouch! Double ouch! Triple ouch. Funnily enough (I’m being sarcastic),
this string of cringeworthy embarrassments is what Matthew has edited out.
Fancy that. He mentions not a word. With a squeaky edit, Matthew switches the
scene straight from the women meeting Jesus and over to Galilee five or so days later, where the men fortunately suffer
no embarrassment whatsoever, and frankly look good. How convenient. That’s
Matthew for you. No mention of the women telling the men. No mention of the men’s
stubborn refusal to believe. No mention of Jesus putting them well and truly in
their place. Hey, guess what? Matthew skips straight to somewhere five days’
walk away, to Galilee, and says – wait for it – the “eleven… worshipped” Jesus!
Who would ever know that the men weren't always so faithful? Well, if you
want to give a positive uplifting account of the resurrection to chivvy up the
troops in Galilee, why not skip straight to that? It makes Matthew’s account a truncated
stump of a resurrection account, but it does his job.

The men

Matthew has given us a first meeting of the women with
Jesus. The women understand. They
worship him. You might think that the following meeting of the resurrected
Jesus to the men, in Bethany, is so momentous that you wouldn’t edit it out,
would you, Matthew? Well, for Matthew, this isn’t a greatest hits collection,
this is mission. And some details just sort of feel, well, you know,
unnecessary (cough). Okay, the women worshipped, but the men didn’t get it. It
just sort of gets in the way.

Why be troubled if you can skip straight to another very
impressive meeting of the eleven with Jesus where all goes so much better,
where, gloriously and without embarrassment, the disciples “worshipped him”.
That’s all good then. Jesus commissions them all to go and be missionaries. The
end. It’s all turned out fine. It’s just as if the men never had an issue with Jesus
being resurrected. Fancy that. It’s as if the men simply got it all right, just as the women did. Just
don’t look back at the smoking gun, Matthew’s complete erasure of any sight of
the men on the Sunday. Razzle dazzle: the men worshipped.

Matthew’s priority: you’ve promised a resurrection
appearance. You’ve given one. One is as good as the other. The women had the
first appearance of Jesus anyway. So what real difference will it make?
Especially as the Galilee one puts them in the desired light. Matthew isn’t
writing a catalogue, and he really doesn’t care to try. He is writing something
to be read out liturgically, in church, and recording a story that was surely always meant to be celebrated in Galilee in particular. And there are limits to how much you
want the ultimate embarrassment to be read out in church every week.

What Jesus says to do: “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the
point of death,” he said to them. “Stay here and keep watch.”

What they actually do: “Then he returned to his
disciples and found them sleeping. “Simon,” he said to Peter, “are you asleep? Couldn’t
you keep watch for one hour?””

What Jesus says to do: “He then began to teach them that the Son of
Man must suffer many things… and that he must be killed and after three days
rise again…. “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny
themselves and take up their cross and follow me.For whoever
wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and
for the gospel will save it.”"

What they actually do: “Then everyone deserted him
and fled.”

What Jesus says: “Suddenly Jesus met [the women]. “Greetings,” he
said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to
them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they
will see me.”

What happens directly after: Skip
any sight of the men on the Sunday. Nothing to see here. No matter what the cost to other material!
Thanks for that, Matthew.

The women

How let down by the men must the women have felt? They must
have felt as let down as Jesus did.

Although Matthew has made an extraordinary omission to our
eyes, the issue with telling the story about the women’s speaking to the men is
that it reveals the men’s embarrassment. It means telling about the disciples
being frozen, stuck in utter unbelief, on the greatest day of history. And look
how the embarrassment is variously covered in different writings: Matthew skips
straight from Bethany to Galilee as if he had a Tardis. Mark probably
did the same originally before the ending was lost. Paul doesn’t mention the
women’s discovery, and just starts with the happy news that Jesus appeared to
Peter. Phew! Thank goodness there are so many ways to spare men from
embarrassment.

Matthew is a Galilean with an audience to think about,
including women, on which I will say more. Luke on the other hand is a bit more
removed from the Galilee crowd. He’s Paul’s friend. He has no such qualms about
telling the women’s story properly.

Luke spills the beans and makes it all get read out in
church time and time again.

Quite what Matthew might have thought about Luke spilling
the beans about the embarrassment on the greatest day in history, we shall
never know. But if you want to know why Matthew unnervingly leaves out the
scene where the women break the news to the disciples, if you want to know why
Matthew skips awkwardly straight from the empty tomb to Galilee - even at cost of skipping the story of where Jesus removes doubt in the upper room in Bethany - now you see
the issue. Matthew, cleverly, obscures what he’s left out by slapping his
anecdote about the tomb guards inbetween the empty tomb and Galilee, so that
you can’t see the join. Otherwise, his clumsy edit - from the empty tomb to
Galilee, straight from one to the other - would be, well, it would be jarringly
obvious what Matthew has done. Nice little literary trick. Nice job, Matthew. But
Luke didn’t let you off the hook.

They’re all very human, you know, these disciples. If you believe God used them, then he used them just as they are.

Emotion

Actually, levity aside, it takes more than embarrassment to
make Matthew leave out so much, doesn’t it? Embarrassment is a fact of life. In
his Gospel, the men aren’t shown on the Sunday at all. The whole day. Left out.
Completely. In Matthew, Thursday and Friday was where he took them out of view.
And only a week later does Matthew let them back in view. This is worse than
embarrassment. This is pain. It must have been gut-wrenching sorrow and regret
that a glorious moment of celebration was set up for them by their Lord, a
moment of clear light and fresh air, the past erased, looking forward,
honouring the women, above all honouring their Lord. Instead, they’d let the
women down, let the Lord down, and let themselves down. The fresh start they
could have had that morning was now forever tainted in their memories. What
could have been! They brought on themselves only shame, when there could have
been celebration. When there should have been. It could have been perfect. They
could never get that moment back. The women could never get that moment back,
and no more is heard of them in Matthew. The women were effectively robbed of
one of the greatest moments in their lives by the disciples’ unbelief.

Every family has an event in the past that you don’t talk
about, and you don’t bring up. Things that hurt. You don’t cause further pain
to those you hurt. Silence is the best way. It doesn’t heal. It just covers up.
Gut-wrenching regret at what that moment could have been for the women and everyone
involved. If you don’t understand, one thing you can be sure of. The twelve,
even with the benefit of hindsight, don’t keep talking about it afterwards to
the women. They don’t keep bringing it up. It’s not rehearsed week after week
in their public talks. Fast forward to Galilee.

Why did it matter so much after it was written down, you
might ask? Bear in mind that the gospels had limited use in those days. They
weren’t made for commercial sale – you would not have found street traders
selling them. It was different from how it is now. The gospels were for use within
the Christian community, mainly for practical purposes such as being read out
at Sunday meetings, or for training believers. This movement in the main was
not flush with money, which made copies of the gospels precious, made of
expensive materials, laboriously copied out by hand, and in use for a long time
until they fell apart.

Go back to the earliest times when they were in use, as a written
reflection of oral tellings of the same things. That’s right, the early church
had no problem in believing that Mark wrote down what Peter taught. The fact
that such was easy for them to believe is testament to the fact that such a
thing was normal. A gospel was taken to be a record of what someone as important
as Peter said. So what was being said, and what was written down, went back to
the earliest days of the movement, and had all the sensitivities of people’s
feelings, such sensitive feelings as you tend to encounter in new movements.
Bear that in mind as background.

In communities, there are stories you tell and stories you
don’t. It’s a fact of life. You might be desperate to know what Grandad did in
the war, but he’s never going to tell – that’s how it goes. You might be
desperate to know why your parents really got divorced – but they are never going
to tell you the whole story. Admitting that at Jesus’ arrest, he was deserted
by his friends, was unavoidable – the arrest story only makes sense if their
fleeing is admitted. The women discovering the empty tomb is integral to the
Gospel, and can’t really be left out of a long account. The resurrection Sunday
fiasco that follows doesn’t have to be told. To put it more clearly, the men’s
version of the story doesn’t need to be heard. It’s only because Luke fills in
what Matthew leaves out that we know how the women’s news was met. We don’t
know their anger.

Luke’s Gospel, more than any other writer’s Gospel, is where
you hear women’s side of stories. This is just such a moment. Theirs is the
side of the story that is preserved in history, but only because Luke shares
the story of the awful way that the eleven reacted to them. It is never
properly heard from the men’s perspective. No other Gospel even describes the
moment. (When an extra ending was tagged onto the end of Mark’s Gospel – Mark
16:9-20 - that and nowhere else is where it is given a passing mention.) The
least we can do is hear
it again via Luke:

“When they came back from the
tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was
Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who
told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their
words seemed to them like nonsense. Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb.”

Luke alone, and no other Gospel, mentions Joanna, by the way.
Perhaps it is her side of the story.

As for the men, that Sunday, Matthew erases their entire
involvement, even at the cost of not reporting Jesus’ appearance to them. Just
as well there was another appearance to tell about.

And that's what they were in Galilee to proclaim.

Epilogue

According
to Luke, the start of those appearances of Jesus was the start of 40 days of such appearances.

At the end of Luke's Gospel and in the start of its continuation in Acts 1, there are collections of sayings which signal that they have returned again from Galilee to somewhere in the vicinity of Jerusalem - the
Mount of Olives is mentioned at one point, a "Sabbath-days' walk from the city", similarly Bethany. It's hard to pin down these movements exactly. Luke isn't asking us to. News of the resurrection had been taken to Galilee. But there are still some unfulfilled promises. In Galilee, the resurrection was preached but there was no mention that the Holy Spirit has come. That moment is reserved for Jerusalem, the holy site of Israel's temple. That is why they are back to the vicinity of Jerusalem. "On
one occasion", during the 40 days, they get the signal that the time for travelling is over. It comes at a moment with Jesus when they are not within Jerusalem itself, that they
get Jesus’ signal that it is time to wait: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised" (as it is in the collection of sayings in Acts). Why that instruction to stay in Jerusalem was not given by Jesus earlier in the 40 days we can only put down to the times travelling - not just around Bethany and the Mount of Olives but in Galilee.

This casual "on one occasion" comment helps us to place some things. The 40 days is not split in two - before and after that "one occasion". After it, there is only the vicinity of Jerusalem. Before that "one occasion" becomes the only period for anything outside Jerusalem, which helps us to place the time of the trip to Galilee as being before the "one occasion". Now, going to and from Galilee uses up about ten days, and we must assume there was time there for teaching about the resurrection - so more than 10 days overall in Galilee in all likelihood. That still leaves potentially more than half of the 40 days in the vicinity of Jerusalem, but we are told little about that time except that he "spoke
about the Kingdom of God."

Now, the last of the neat collection of sayings is "I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high" (as it is in the collection of sayings in Luke's Gospel).

What is rather special is this: not just that the disciples are staying in Jerusalem at this point, but who
is meeting with them: "When they arrived, they went upstairs to
the room where they were staying…They all joined together
constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus…" It looks very much like, at some point during the 40 days, some folk have been going round gathering Jesus' people back together again - not least the women. Although Matthew never mentioned the women again, Luke - writing an extra book - does do so, with an honourable mention. Witnesses to the resurrection and surely the source of some of these stories, the women are still playing an active part in the mission.

Footnote: why Galilee?

The instruction to the disciples to go to Galilee after the resurrection
makes complete sense for the gospel story. The Galileans are Jesus and the
disciples’ fellow countryfolk, who have heard so much about the Kingdom of God
from him over many months, if not years. It will be crucial to his mission that
they see and believe in him, fulfilling all the promise of the early chapters
of Matthew’s Gospel. For Jesus and the disciples, it’s their beloved homeland,
their people, where they have always belonged and wanted to see God’s power. One
thing that Matthew wants us to take away is that his ending is all about
keeping the promises made in Galilee earlier in his Gospel.,which is why Matthew
starts and ends his Gospel in Galilee.

How was this to work in Galilee after the resurrection?
Well, for the people of Galilee to believe the disciples’ testimony, then the
disciples had to be prepared to believe the women, not be professional
sceptics. Believing and obeying was intrinsic to this. Their understanding of
the message was crucial. It had to be their very reason for going to Galilee.
It had to be such that when fellow Galileans saw Jesus on the mountain there, perhaps
as many as 500 at one time, then those Galileans had to be able to
understand, to believe, that Jesus had risen from the dead.

We know that the disciples often needed a nudge in the right
direction from Jesus. That nudge was supposed to come through the women and the
empty tomb. The men failed to believe and obey. This must have been devastating
for the women. But that Sunday, the women are vindicated, as Jesus turns up at
the house in Bethany and gives the men a piece of his mind. It’s only with this
missing scene, found in Luke, that the end of Matthew fully makes sense.

Matthew’s ending makes the disciples appear simplistically beholden
and obedient to the women’s say-so, which seems slightly out of character –
even if they are expected to rise above their failings and obey the instruction.
We know their frailties and foibles. The men’s simplistic obedience to a
message that has come out of the blue through the women, well, this obedience
doesn’t quite ring true if Matthew doesn’t qualify it in any way at all. If we
suspected that they might need help to believe and obey, well Matthew doesn’t
present that to us. The messenger at the tomb speaking on behalf of Jesus
obviously believed that they had the capacity to believe and obey the women. If
anything did go wrong though, then Matthew has edited it out. It looks like
glorious success all round in his telling of the story.

But turn to Luke’s Gospel and the missing bit is there. The
inconvenient truth that the disciples didn’t believe the women, and only after
appearances nearer to Jerusalem did the disciples obey and do what they were
meant to do in the first place, go to Galilee, where it all starts again, and
Jesus teaches his disciples how to be missionaries, and Galilee gets to be a
launch pad for the Christian mission for the Galileans.